Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Which do you prefer?
For me... DEFINITELY Battlefield 3

It's my substitute for being in the airforce and stuff
The quality graphics are like :O

Just vote and comment on why you chose that game!

BF3, mostly because it's much more strategic and team oriented, not to mention vehicles.

BF3.

Can't have proper tactical warfare without vehicles and fun to play support roles. If I'd want to go mano-a-mano I'd play Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament.

Completely agree especialy the UT bit

Which is not to say that CS or UT were bad, I quite enjoyed them! Especially on all those LAN parties.

But I fell in love with the Battlefield franchise ever since the very first iteration (BF1942), even though I did not play each one of its successors (gave BF Vietnam and BF2042 a wide berth; it just didn't "click"). The ability to take vehicles and stationary emplacements was just so much fun!

One thing I'm missing since several titles is the command of naval vessels, however. It was so amazing being able to steer giant warships such as the Yamato over the ocean to engage in artillery duels with other players or to lay down devastataing coastal bombardment, or to steer the team's aircraft carrier closer to the enemy island so that the fighters and bombers didn't have such a long way to fly - all the while keeping an eye out for submarines, who could only reliably be hunted down by destroyer escorts!
Gawd, I hope they do a re-release of BF1942...

I think BF3 because it has a more realistic warzone

Fallout 3.....

I've played both, and I had to stick with Battlefield 3. I like the game modes more, the vehicles are awesome, and the overall game play just suits me more.

I'm not saying that MW3 is a worse game; I just enjoy BF3 a lot more.

BF3 here too. Though I must say that for me, Crysis 2 owns both of them. I like the sci-fi mix. And the fact that you can shoot, and melee whilst sliding, even when you're online.

Nothing like getting a kill by kicking someone's legs out from under them!

If only there were a new rainbow six game...

I put both. I like MW3 for the weapon customization, the killstreaks and the fact that all my buddies on the PS3 network have it. I like BF3 for the graphics, destructible terrain, and the vehicle combat, sadly though non of my friends play it :(

I personally prefer the Call of Duty series so I chose MW3. One of the major issues I have with BF3 is the online pass, myself and my partner both play video games, we have separate consoles and so in order to play online we'd have to essentially buy two copies of the same game and/or pay an extra £10 for the pass in order to play online. Considering we would be buying it new it just seems very unfair. The issue of the online pass makes the choice between MW3 and BF3 a very easy one to make.

Lynata wrote:BF3.

Can't have proper tactical warfare without vehicles and fun to play support roles. If I'd want to go mano-a-mano I'd play Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament.

Yes I have to agree on that one, I was a great fan of UT3. Sadly I haven't bought CS yet. :/

CallsignNeptune wrote:I personally prefer the Call of Duty series so I chose MW3. One of the major issues I have with BF3 is the online pass, myself and my partner both play video games, we have separate consoles and so in order to play online we'd have to essentially buy two copies of the same game and/or pay an extra £10 for the pass in order to play online. Considering we would be buying it new it just seems very unfair. The issue of the online pass makes the choice between MW3 and BF3 a very easy one to make.

You only have to buy the pass if you buy it used...it comes free if you buy it new...

mega_bassist wrote:You only have to buy the pass if you buy it used...it comes free if you buy it new...

I think he meant that they can't use the same newly purchased game both even when they're living in the same house, due to having two consoles.

For what it's worth, I would agree that these "online passes" are a rather nasty development in the industry, and I dislike seeing this slowly creep into PC gaming nowadays, too (though there you at least have the possibility to share the game's account details, I understand that with consoles the account is for everything you have?). Gone are the days you could just buy a game and then give it to a friend for a few weeks. It's like a car would magically loose its tires the moment you let a friend drive.

I'm sure car manufacturers would love to implement such a "feature" if they could, though. Online gaming allowing active control by the publisher just opens up a lot of possibilities for exploitation. Already you do not buy the game anymore, you buy a license allowing you limited use of the game.

Cry more. As has been pointed out thousands of times on these forums, buying a second hand copy of the game does nothing for the game developers, publishers, etc. Online games require servers, servers cost money, either support the maintenance of those servers or dont play online, its that simple.

Lynata wrote:Which is not to say that CS or UT were bad, I quite enjoyed them! Especially on all those LAN parties.

But I fell in love with the Battlefield franchise ever since the very first iteration (BF1942), even though I did not play each one of its successors (gave BF Vietnam and BF2042 a wide berth; it just didn't "click"). The ability to take vehicles and stationary emplacements was just so much fun!

One thing I'm missing since several titles is the command of naval vessels, however. It was so amazing being able to steer giant warships such as the Yamato over the ocean to engage in artillery duels with other players or to lay down devastataing coastal bombardment, or to steer the team's aircraft carrier closer to the enemy island so that the fighters and bombers didn't have such a long way to fly - all the while keeping an eye out for submarines, who could only reliably be hunted down by destroyer escorts!
Gawd, I hope they do a re-release of BF1942...

They 'did' in a sense; Battlefield 1943.

No steerable ships though.

chaos0xomega wrote:Cry more. As has been pointed out thousands of times on these forums, buying a second hand copy of the game does nothing for the game developers, publishers, etc. Online games require servers, servers cost money, either support the maintenance of those servers or dont play online, its that simple.

Of course that argument is utter BS in cases where the servers are provided and paid for by the community and not the company. And needless to say, dedicated servers hosted by the publisher existed long before the idea of "online passes" without hurting the developer so much.

For the corporations, it's just a way to maximize their profits. This is not inherently evil - we're living in a capitalist society. But please let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

Henners91 wrote:No steerable ships though.

And no PC version.

chaos0xomega wrote:If only there were a new rainbow six game...

Rainbow Six: Patriots

Thank me later.

And On Topic: Battlefield 3. Because Kanluwen would slit my throat if I got MW3.

He wouldn't be the only one...

Soladrin wrote:He wouldn't be the only one...

You?

You're less threatening than Slarg.

How? You can incapacitate him with a peanut.

Lynata wrote:

mega_bassist wrote:You only have to buy the pass if you buy it used...it comes free if you buy it new...

I think he meant that they can't use the same newly purchased game both even when they're living in the same house, due to having two consoles.

For what it's worth, I would agree that these "online passes" are a rather nasty development in the industry, and I dislike seeing this slowly creep into PC gaming nowadays, too (though there you at least have the possibility to share the game's account details, I understand that with consoles the account is for everything you have?). Gone are the days you could just buy a game and then give it to a friend for a few weeks. It's like a car would magically loose its tires the moment you let a friend drive.

I'm sure car manufacturers would love to implement such a "feature" if they could, though. Online gaming allowing active control by the publisher just opens up a lot of possibilities for exploitation. Already you do not buy the game anymore, you buy a license allowing you limited use of the game.

Yes, the issue of the online pass, recently my friend's mum threw out his BF3 online pass without knowing

I have both games, but I think I prefer MW3 more.

Both games have a degree of difficulty for anyone just starting out online. You have no access to the weapons someone else does who's been playing alot longer then you have.

However, BF3 just seems to have a wider gap in this regard and that's very frustrating. Also the vehicles are a nice touch, but they feel very over-powered when you're not in one. Taking like 3-4 rockets to bring a tank down just seems like a lot coupled with the slow reload time of the rocket launchers.

I'm also not a fan of the fact that BF3 allows tanks to take objectives. That should be completely removed and only infantry can take/hold an objective. Then again MW3 and it's 'dolphin-diving' shenanigans needs to be patched as well. Diving to the ground and being able to shoot while doing so is completely dumb, imo.

I prefer Hardcore modes for both games. I can't stand unloading a clip into a guy and watching him jump away like bullets don't rip him apart.

Yeah I'm a little critical when it comes to shooting games, oh well.

How is hardcore mode? my copy of BF3 has been sitting unopened since November (been busy), gonna start playing online again soon but I've never played hardcore before. Would you recommend familiarizing with standard before switching? If it helps any, I was an absolute beast during beta, and had quite an impressive record in Bad Company 2 in standard mode

Havent played MW3, put in a good bit of time with BF3 though, i would say modern warfare 2 was more fun but was also a heck of alot more frustrating. In MW i never felt like i was in the top half of players even when i was getting good as there was always some exploit or Loadout that pwned.

In Battlefield 3 i definitely feel like one of the better players, my positioning is always good and if i played it more i think i would be well on my way to 2:1 (i always start very poorly in Online games, takes me a while to get used to them). I think this is partially to do with How one plays BF3, if they are shooting at you, you're doing it wrong. Its all about flanking.

This is also why MW is always gonna be a bit more fun, you drop a guy 'cos you pulled first. It's also why i Go Atomic RAEG while playing MW and always feel cheated. Whereas i only get angry when a spawn camper gets me in BF.

Fexor wrote:Also the vehicles are a nice touch, but they feel very over-powered when you're not in one. Taking like 3-4 rockets to bring a tank down just seems like a lot coupled with the slow reload time of the rocket launchers.

Realism and challenge. It balances out by your own team having access to the very same vehicles, as well as infantry having an advantage in hiding from the tank crew's sight, shooting and disappearing back into cover to reload only when the turret is not looking their way.

I understand it's a matter of personal preference, though.

Fexor wrote:I prefer Hardcore modes for both games. I can't stand unloading a clip into a guy and watching him jump away like bullets don't rip him apart.

This I can relate to completely.

Lynata wrote:

Fexor wrote:Also the vehicles are a nice touch, but they feel very over-powered when you're not in one. Taking like 3-4 rockets to bring a tank down just seems like a lot coupled with the slow reload time of the rocket launchers.

Realism and challenge. It balances out by your own team having access to the very same vehicles, as well as infantry having an advantage in hiding from the tank crew's sight, shooting and disappearing back into cover to reload only when the turret is not looking their way.

I understand it's a matter of personal preference, though.

Fexor wrote:I prefer Hardcore modes for both games. I can't stand unloading a clip into a guy and watching him jump away like bullets don't rip him apart.

This I can relate to completely.

And C4 and AT mines.

And the USAS with frag rounds....man, I hate that gun sooooooooo much

Soladrin wrote:And C4 and AT mines.

C4 and JEEPS!